Cost-Effectiveness of an Insertable Cardiac Arrhythmia Monitor after Non-ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction in the UK

Background and Objectives Patients surviving a non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI) have an elevated risk of future major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), which can be mitigated through long-term cardiac arrhythmia monitoring. The present study evaluated the cost-effectiveness of continuous remote arrhythmia monitoring using an insertable cardiac monitor (ICM) combined with standard of care (SoC) compared with SoC alone. Methods A cost-effectiveness analysis using a lifetime partitioned survival model was developed for high-risk NSTEMI patients from a UK National Health Service (NHS) perspective. Survival analysis was used to determine the transition of patients from the pre-MACE health state (where patients could experience arrhythmia, major bleeding, or systemic embolism) to the MACE health state (worsening heart failure, stroke, and acute coronary syndrome events). The survival analysis and arrhythmia diagnosis rates were informed by the BIO|GUARD-MI trial. The model captured direct costs associated with each MACE and implantation and removal of the ICM device and treatment costs following arrhythmia detection. The model captured the health implications for an ICM with SoC, compared with SoC alone, in terms of the total quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were undertaken to explore the impact of parameter uncertainty on the model results. Results The use of ICMs plus SoC for daily remote cardiac arrhythmia monitoring is cost effective, when compared with SoC alone, in high-risk NSTEMI patients over a lifetime horizon, with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of £7766 per QALY gained. The ICM was associated with an additional 0.184 QALYs per patient for an additional cost of £1430. The ICM remained cost effective during the deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. Conclusion The addition of an ICM to SoC in high-risk NSTEMI patients is cost effective from the perspective of the UK NHS and would, therefore, be a further option for the management of such patients in clinical practice.